Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

‘To the person’

How can so many people be so wrong about so much?
Thank Bob for me!

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
That’s the point you start paying attention to what he’s actually doing?

What do you mean? You equated Sanders and Trump because they are "anti-establishment". I've noticed, however, that the Trump movement has a lot more popular appeal. He knows which buttons to push. Just because they both oppose the status quo is not reason to equate their efforts, their ideologies, or the reasons for their popularity.

Actually, it is a good reason to equate their popularity.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Ad hom literally means ‘about the person.’

I was responding to your above quoted sentence.

Besides that, I don't think that Merriam-Webster is a Latin-English dictionary.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Ad hom

1 Reply

@blatham,

Do the air traffic controllers count?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Lash wrote:
Ad hom literally means ‘about the person.’
I don't know where and how long you studied Lati, but you are wrong.

Ad hom is an abbreviation of the Latin "argumentum ad hominem".
Literally it means "evidence [ or speech] to man", meaning as an overall term "speech against the person".

Exactly what I said.
Bad faith, Walter.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Wikipedia wrote:

Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

So, it had NO material effect. As I said.

But what you said was wrong. You can read many synopses of the board's decisions HERE. It's safe to say that many of them have had a material effect.

0 Replies

@Lash,

No it's not.

You've admitted to voting for Dubya twice, the second time after the freedom fries furore, so you must have supported it.

What's changed?

Actually I know what has. Bush was a Republican so you engaged in anti French rhetoric, while Biden is a Democrat so you're supportive of,not just the French, but anything that you think makes Biden look bad.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Exactly what I said.

Bis repetita non placent.

You wrote:

Ad hom literally means ‘about the person.’

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Lash wrote:
Exactly what I said.

Bis repetita non placent.

You wrote:
Ad hom literally means ‘about the person.’

Bad faith, Walter. Means exactly the same thing.
Literally it means "evidence [ or speech] to man", meaning as an overall term "speech against the person".

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Lash wrote:
Exactly what I said.

Bis repetita non placent.

You wrote:
Ad hom literally means ‘about the person.’

Bad faith, Walter. Means exactly the same thing.
Literally it means "evidence [ or speech] to man", meaning as an overall term "speech against the person".

Which is what you are doing right here, Lash...and in many other places. It happens in Internet discussions. Sometimes it happens when there was no bad intentions...as with the question I posed earlier that you did not answer.

Each comment one makes calling a supposed Ad Hom to someone's attention...is essentially an Ad Hom.

Why you think that opinions can be discussed without comments on (perhaps) motives of the person opining...is beyond understanding.

2 Replies

Geez

0 Replies

@Lash,

Initially, you wrote...

Quote:

Strike. A lot of people would support them.
The US needs a prolonged national strike.

I responded that the last national strike was in 1946.

Now you ask...

Quote:

Re: blatham (Post 7285084)
Do the air traffic controllers count?

I presume you refer to the 1981 air controllers strike in the US during the Reagan period. If by "national strike" you mean a nationwide strike by a single union, yes. I thought you were advocating a nationwide general strike where other unions would also go out in support.

But of course, Reagan's response (firing 11,000 controllers and making it illegal for them to be rehired later) was probably the largest single blow to unionization in US history.

So if you actually believe that Biden is a union buster as you said then your advocating for a national strike by railroad workers would set them (and unions generally) up for a similarly destructive set of consequences.

You also said people would support such a strike. That makes no sense at all given the economic consequences during this modern period where economic stability and general prosperity is more fragile than in 1981. And even then, the public was on Reagan's side Pew

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

Yes. It is obviously not an ad hominem attack when one attacks/criticizes Putin's or Trump's or Harvey Weinstein's or Tucker Carlson's truth claims or claims to their objectivity or honesty on some matters as their past personal conduct and motives are entirely relevant.

If we were to say to Lash that we have little reason to accept some political opinion or truth claim she advances because she is a lesbian or a caucasian or a teacher, that would be an ad hominem. If we refuse to accept what she says on such issues because we have seen a record of dishonesty or disingenuousness in her claims and argumentations, that would not be an ad hominem.

2 Replies

@blatham,

You have never seen me be dishonest here.
You don’t like my views or can’t argue the issue, so you say I’m dishonest.
And that is what the ad hominem fallacy is based on.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Yes, I meant the 1981 air controllers’ strike.
Like most people, I hope the railroad workers can get at least 12 days of paid sick leave without a strike. A railway workers strike would be painful for all of us, but less that 1 day a month sick leave is insulting and they shouldn’t settle for it.

Most countries have paid sick leave for most workers.

I think it’s worth some discomfort to push Washington to support workers in meaningful ways.

For this reason, primarily, I’d also support a general strike.

In addition to low pay, no paid leave, and bad working conditions in many cases, we also have to pay for exorbitant, useless healthcare from those wages.

I would be happy for a general strike to strong arm Washington into finally being responsive to American citizens.

Do you agree? Disagree? In Canada? Satisfied with your situation there?

1 Reply

Two further points re my last post. First, how often have any of us seen Lash acknowledge that she had something wrong or even might have got it wrong? How often have we found her to reflect on some counter-argument and admit that she hadn't really thought it through and needed to study more and/or think about it further? That does tell us something.

Second, Lash's mode of posting here is marked by a pretty much constant belligerent style of discourse with others. Her insults are frequent and personal. She seems to either believe herself to be victimized or to simply prefer a discourse style of me versus them rather than anything investigative or learning-centered.

Third, whether intended or not, her activities here have the effect of drawing others into subjects and arguments which distract from the very serious threats to civility and democracy which have arisen from the increasing radicalization of the American right now made clearly evident by the events of the attempted insurrection, the assault on the electoral system, the resurgence of racism and anti-Semitism, the attacks on public schooling and libraries, and other current and dangerous phenomena.

Whatever her motives, this last is classic troll behavior.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Do you agree? Disagree? In Canada? Satisfied with your situation there?

No. I'm unsatisfied with the situation here even if it is much better than what's happening in the US now. Unions are critically important as a means of spreading wealth more fairly and of reducing the power of business and those who hold great wealth. But even where we can fairly criticize our liberal parties in both countries and elsewhere for having become too deeply captured by big money, we do great damage to any viable path towards improving these things by directing ceaseless attacks directed towards those who provide the best available means towards improvement. It's the wrong target in a time of real crises. If weasels are chewing at your toes, that's a problem. But it's not THE problem when a lion is about to bite your head off.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Try to put yourself in the US situation.

I’m sure you’re in a safe financial condition, but hope that you’re compassionate toward those who aren’t.

Would you support the railroad workers’ strike if the government gives them 0-1 paid days of sick leave?

1 Reply

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know